Header 1

Our future, our universe, and other weighty topics

Friday, October 31, 2014

A
few days ago the British newspaper The Independent had an article entitled Do you believe in
ghosts? Leading psychologist claims it's 'all in the brain.' The
article then discussed the views of Christopher French, head of the
Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at the University of London.
French champions the theory that ghost sightings are caused by
psychological issues in those who report the sighting.

French
is not actually a “leading psychologist” in the sense of being
well known. He is the only professor in his Anomalistic Psychology
Research Unit, whose staff consists only of himself, a research
assistant, and some PhD students. French founded the unit himself.
Judging from the front web page of the unit's web site, this
particular academic unit seems to be basically a kind of ideological
arm designed to support Professor French's skeptical prejudices. The
third paragraph of the unit's web page creates the strong impression
that its investigators have pretty much already made up their minds
before they even do their research:

In
general terms, Anomalistic Psychology attempts to explain paranormal and
related beliefs, and ostensibly paranormal experiences in termsof
known or knowable psychological and physical factors...Anomalistic
Psychologists tend to start from the position that paranormal forcesprobably
don't exist and that therefore we should be looking for other kinds
ofexplanations,
in particular the psychological explanations for those experiencesthat
people typically label as paranormal.

Also,
the front web page of this unit's web site brags that French is a “Special Advisor and former Editor-in-Chief of The
Skeptic Magazine,
the UK's foremost and longest-running sceptical magazine.”
It even includes a large cover photo of The Skeptic magazine in the
middle of the text describing the unit's mission. Since magazines
such as The
Skeptic
are famous for being rigid, inflexible scorners of all things
paranormal, and since the very thing French's unit is investigating
involves claims of the paranormal, it seems almost as if French is
throwing away any pretext of scientific objectivity, and implying
that the purpose of his academic unit is to gather evidence for his
pet theory that people have paranormal experiences because of psychological issues. This is the opposite of the way that a scientific academic
unit should be operating, which is to conduct impartial, unbiased,
objective research in which conclusions are derived after research
rather than before it, and in which preconceptions do not influence
analysis and experiments.

But
let's look at the points French makes. First, he tries to discredit
ghost reports by dismissing them as a “sense of a presence being
nearby,” implying that sensible people just “shrug off” such a
sense. “That
paranormal feeling can be induced artificially when brain surgery is
carried out," French says. “Different parts of the cortex when
stimulated produce experiences like that and that for me is very
strong evidence that it’s something in the brain rather than
something out there.”

This
is a very weak argument. First, the mere “sense of a presence being
nearby” is a pretty minor part of ghost reports. The main reason
why ghost reports may be worthy of attention is that people actually
report seeing
ghosts. The mere “sense of a presence being nearby” is just a
kind of interesting detail that normally attracts little attention
from researchers into ghost reports or the popular press. Explaining
that part of ghost reports would still leave one with the far larger
problem of explaining reported sightings of ghosts. Secondly, it is
clearly fallacious to mention feelings during brain surgery to try to
explain anomalous feelings when one is not
having brain surgery (because 99.9% of ghost reports come from people
who are not
undergoing brain surgery). Third, it is absurd to be referring to
people's experiences during brain surgery as support for anything,
because the last I heard people are totally
unconscious
when brain surgery is performed on them.

French
then attempts to suggest that ghost sightings may be hallucinations, saying "we could all have them under appropriate circumstances." He seems to insinuate that ghost sightings are
produced by fear. An interesting hypothesis – you go to a haunted
house or graveyard, and then you get scared so bad, you start
hallucinating. However, the idea is pure bunk. There is no
significant evidence that fear can cause people to have visual
hallucinations.

Artisitic depiction of a ghost sighting

This
link discusses the reasons for hallucinations, mentioning things such
as brain disease, substance withdrawal (such as an alcoholic's
delirium tremens or DT's), drowsiness, poisoning, taking certain
types of drugs, sensory deprivation, and so forth. There is no
discussion at all of hallucinations caused by sudden fears, because
there is no real evidence that such a thing can happen. This link
mentions dozens of causes of visual hallucinations, but does not list
fear or anxiety as a cause.

This
PDF discusses dozens of causes of auditory and visual hallucinations,
but does not mention fear or anxiety.

If
fear were a cause of ghost sightings, then we would often hear about
ghost sightings in the situations where people are most afraid. It
would be very common to hear reports like the imaginary reports below:

I
was there in my foxhole, and the enemy started to shell us with their
artillery. I could see and hear shells exploding not far away. Then
suddenly I saw a ghost in my foxhole.

As
I walked down the narrow dark alley at night, I saw the shape of a
big hulking guy ahead of me. I was terrified that he would mug me.
Then suddenly I saw a ghost in the alley.

I
was driving when the road was rather icy. Suddenly my car went into a
180 degree spin. I was terrified! Then suddenly I saw a ghost in my
car.

Nobody
makes reports like these, because fear does
not cause people to have visual hallucinations of ghosts or anything
else.

Looking
at it from a Darwinian standpoint of natural selection, it is easy to
understand why evolution would probably never allow a situation where
fear was the cause of hallucinations. Having hallucinations in a
threat situation would lower the chance of an organism surviving. If
you have a hallucination while faced with some threat such as an
attacking animal, you are less likely to focus on the real threat and
survive the situation. Organisms which had such hallucinations would
be more likely to die out, less likely to pass on their genes, and
more likely to become extinct.

French
also advances a suggestion of mistakes spreading in a fear situation.
He gives an example: “If
you’re in a reputedly haunted place and someone says they hear
footsteps someone will believe them.”
So if me and my friend are at a haunted house we think is empty, and
my friend says he hears unexplained footprints, that may explain why
I think there are unexplained footprints, but it doesn't explain why
my friend reported the unexplained footsteps in the first place. Not
a very fertile hypothesis.

One
reason why French's explanations fall flat is that most reports of
ghost encounters do not occur at a moment when people are scared
(although fear often follows such claimed encounters). One
common type of ghost encounter seems to be what are called “crisis
apparitions,” a type where one person reports unexpectedly seeing
an apparition of a recently dead person. Cases of this type were
exhaustively documented in the classic work Phantasms of the
Living (which can be read here). There are also sites that are
involved repeatedly in ghost reports, but the “ghost encounters”
at such sites seem to occur at unpredictable, random intervals, with
typically years between reports. In the latter cases, the reported
ghost sighting typically occurs as a sudden surprise, not as
something that was preceded by fear.

As
I reported in this post, one of the stereotype-busting findings of a
recent study on ghost sightings is that 64% of the people reporting
sightings said they occurred “during
mundane or normal times in their lives.” This is not a finding
compatible with the idea that fear causes ghost sightings.

Along
with near-death experiences, the phenomenon of apparition sightings
is an ongoing thorn in the side of materialists who rigidly cling to
the idea that consciousness cannot exist outside of the brain.
Conceivably one day after we unravel all the mysteries of the brain,
we might have some purely psychological explanation of ghost
sightings. But judging from his newspaper interview, French doesn't
seem to have got to first base at such a task. If he wants to score
on the matter, my first suggestion is that he start out by abandoning
the blatantly ideological “we've already made up our mind”
attitude glaringly shown on his academic unit's web page, and that he
investigate his subject matter in an impartial, objective, unbiased
manner, like a good scientist should.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

The Mysterious Universe web site came out yesterday with a story
entitled “NASA Photo Shows Earth-sized UFO Orbiting Sun.” That is
quite a sensational claim. Let's take a close look at the matter.

The photo given to support this claim is the one below (the alleged UFO is on the right edge of the sun, in
the vertical middle of the photo):

The photo is part of this NASA photo:

Now, at first glance the photo may seem fairly convincing. It
basically looks like half of a gigantic bowl, one that is
either entering into the sun, or orbiting behind it. Seeing this
“half a bowl” shape makes one think of a flying saucer, but it
actually is not half of the classic flying saucer shape, but merely
half of a bowl shape (as the visual below shows).

But there is at least one
problem: the “half a bowl” shape does not look any different than
the nearby solar material. The “half a bowl” is a shade of
green very similar to nearby solar material that is part of the sun.

So we must consider that this
“half a bowl” shape may be merely a solar prominence, which is
when the gas from the sun gushes out beyond the outer circumference
of the sun. But is it very improbable that we would see a solar
prominence as big as this given the current solar conditions? I could
show a photo of a solar prominence showing gas shooting out much
farther than this “half a bowl” shape. But that might not be
fair, because perhaps such a photo was taken at a different stage in
the solar cycle.

But it would be fair to look
for very recent solar prominences, to see whether any of them jut out
as far as this “half a bowl” shape. As it happens, on Oct 19th
there was such a prominence. It is shown below on the left side of
the sun:

This prominence is about the
same size as the “half a bowl” shape. The photo below compares
both of them:

The “half a bowl” shape
and the Oct 19th prominence are about the same shape, size, and
color. The only difference is that the Oct 19th
prominence is a little more irregular-looking, and has a little kind
of curl at its end.

Is this little difference
enough for us to conclude that the “half a bowl” shape is
actually a UFO? Certainly not. What we simply seem to have here is a
solar prominence that coincidentally seems to have a somewhat
artificial-looking “half a bowl” shape. You are unlikely to see
something this artificial-looking if you look at solar prominences on
ten or twenty consecutive days. But if you look for fifty or a
hundred days, you would have a decent chance of seeing something as
artificial-looking as the alleged UFO.

In short, we do not have any sufficient
visual basis for concluding that this “half a bowl” shape
is an extraterrestrial spacecraft. Moreover, there are three
credibility problems with the “giant UFO” hypothesis:

It is hard to believe
that extraterrestrials would create a spaceship the size of an
entire planet.

If they did create such
a spaceship and send it to our solar system, we probably would have
detected it, because it would be so huge it could hardly escape the
attention of astronomers.

If extraterrestrials did
send such a spaceship into our solar-system, it is very hard to
believe that they would send it so close to the sun, where it would
presumably be damaged by the extreme heat, and would be in great risk of being
dragged into the sun by the sun's enormous gravity.

As indicated in previous
posts, I am certainly quite open to ideas that extraterrestrials may
be running around here and there in our solar system. But because of
all these reasons, I must for the moment reject this
“earth-sized UFO near the sun” theory.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

There has been a very strange
series of unusual things found in photographs taken by unmanned
robots on the planet Mars. One object recently noticed on this NASA
data page is the “traffic light” structure shown below (which almost seems to have been placed on a smoothed surface to make it more noticeable):

Image Credit: NASA

Then on this NASA page there was the Mars
object resembling a femur bone:

Image Credit: NASA

Then there was the Mars
object resembling a small statue of a human:

Image Credit: NASA

This photo is cropped from a
spot on the bottom left corner of the very large image here.

Then there was the Mars photo
showing what looked like a perfect sphere:

Image Credit: NASA

There were also two
consecutive days on which a Mars rover showed a mysterious light on
the horizon. Skeptics claimed that both were caused by cosmic rays
that coincidentally appeared near the horizon, although a calculation suggeststhat the chance of this happening on two consecutive
days is something like 1 in a million.

More recently, there was a
NASA photo of what has been called a “Celtic cross,” although it can
be more properly described as just being an “X” within a circle.
The photo is below:

Image Credit: NASA

Skeptics have tried to debunk
this photo by claiming that it is a screw imprint from the APXS
instrument on the Opportunity rover that took this picture. My
previous blog post refutes this hypothesis. As I explain in that post, according to the NASA activity log for the Opportunity rover
that took this picture, the APXS instrument was not used at the site
where this photo was taken until the night after the photo was taken.
That means this strange “X within a circle” cannot be explained
as a screw imprint.

So we seem to have some
anomalous observations on the planet Mars. It is time to look at what
“out of the box” explanations might help to explain such unusual
sightings. When considering such possibilities, we should consider a
very wide spectrum of possibilities. Below are some of the possible
things that might be causing some of these strange observations.

Possibility 1:
Coincidences

This is the simplest
explanation, although it seems to stretch credulity. For example,
while it may not be too implausible to imagine that an X shape would
coincidentally appear on Mars due to a random arrangement of matter,
and while it may not be too implausible to imagine that somewhere
else a circle shape would coincidentally appear on Mars due to a
random arrangement of matter, it seems very implausible that an X
shape would coincidentally appear within a circle shape only slightly larger, due to a
random arrangement of matter (as shown in the “Celtic cross”
photo above).

Possibility 2: Remnants of
an Ancient Civilization That Naturally Arose on Mars

It could be that some of the
things we are seeing on Mars are remnants of an ancient civilization
that naturally arose there. This possibility is rather farfetched,
but not totally unthinkable. We know that billions of years ago Mars
was a lot more earth-like than it is now, and scientists think that
it might well once have had flowing water. But scientists think that
if flowing water existed on Mars, it only existed during a small
fraction of the planet's history. For most of the past 4.5 billion
years, Mars has apparently been very arid. Judging from the history
of evolution on Earth, there would not have been time for intelligent
life to have evolved on Mars during the time when there was lots of
water around.

But it is just barely
possible that life could have got a foothold on Mars billions of
years ago, and then life could have moved underground as conditions
on the surface gradually worsened. It could be that for billions of
years life has been evolving underground on Mars, where there may be
more water (along with shielding from cosmic rays). Just possibly,
intelligent life and a civilization may have developed. Subterranean
creatures on Mars might occasionally journey to the surface of the
planet, just as earthly scuba divers occasionally visit the bottom of
the sea. They might occasionally leave some junk behind, just as
earthly scuba divers sometimes discard things at the bottom of the
sea.

Possibility 3: Remnants of
an Extrasolar Civilization That Colonized Mars

It could be that some of the
things we are seeing on Mars are remnants of a colony or base that
appeared on Mars because of interstellar colonization. Intelligent
life could have arisen on some planet revolving around another star,
and creatures from that planet could have eventually traveled to our
solar system, establishing a base or colony on Mars. This possibility
averts the objection that there probably wasn't enough time for
intelligent life to have arisen on Mars itself.

One might object that if such
a colony or base had been established on Mars, it would have left
large traces that we would have detected by now – that such traces
would have shown up in pictures taken by various Mars orbiters. Such
an objection is not necessarily decisive. Extrasolar colonizers might
have abandoned a colony set up on Mars, and might have decided to
remove most traces of it, like natural park visitors cleaning up
their campsite to leave their campsite area in its natural state. But
such a cleanup may not have been perfect, and a few traces might have
been left behind. Or, a colony or base might have become uninhabited
because of mission failure, a plague, a supply problem, or some other
reason. Then natural geological processes (and the ferocious Martian
sandstorms) might have covered up almost all traces of the colony or
base, except for a few scattered remnants.

Possibility 4: Deliberate
Signs Left by Current Extraterrestrial Visitors

It is possible that our
planet is under surveillance by extraterrestrial visitors, as
suggested by the many UFO sightings. Perhaps they don't want to
suddenly land a flying saucer on the White House lawn, because the
sudden shock might be too much for us. So is possible that such
visitors are trying to gradually wake us up to their existence and
presence. Having UFO's appear in our skies would be one way to do
that, but it is almost as if we have stopped paying attention to such
sightings. So extraterrestrial visitors might be using other
techniques to gradually alert us to their existence.

One such technique might be
placing artificial-looking objects on the surface of Mars, in the
same places that the two Mars robotic rovers (Opportunity and
Curiosity) are exploring. The plan might be to place more and more of
such objects in the path of the robotic rovers, with increasingly
artificial objects appearing. Eventually, perhaps, the whole world
will gradually be alerted that man is not alone in the universe.
Then, when we are psychologically prepared, extraterrestrial visitors
might finally appear in some undeniable way such as a White House
lawn landing.

Possibility 5: Deliberate
Signs Left by a Divine or Angelic Power

It is fairly easy to adopt
the previous hypothesis to make it fit more old-fashioned theological
assumptions. We just replace “extraterrestrials” with “God”
or “angels.” We can imagine that some divine or angelic presence
wishes to leave some kind of sign, and is using Mars as part of that
plan. Why Mars? Because it is harder to explain away any object left
on Mars. If a divine or angelic being were to leave some physical
sign on our planet, skeptics would immediately say: someone faked it.
But if an object appears on Mars, there is no possibility that
someone faked it.

Possibility 6: Deliberate
Signs From the Other Side or Another Dimension or Plane of Existence

This possibility is not as
outrageous as it may seem at first. Some people have reported that
during seances (in which communication allegedly occurs between the
dead and the living), there are sometimes physical objects that
mysteriously appear – things such as coins and flowers. Such
objects are called apports. Some believe that there is a spiritual
dimension or plane that intersects or overlaps our physical reality,
and that physical objects can sometimes be passed from this spiritual
dimension or plane into our physical world. If that could happen on
our planet, it could also happen on Mars.

Imagine that when people die,
they go to some “other side” or dimension that overlaps or
intersects our physical reality. Beings in such a dimension might
want to leave a sign to our physical world that they exist. A
physical sign left on our planet would probably be ignored or
explained away, but an artificial-looking physical object left on
Mars (and photographed by one of the Mars robotic rovers) would be
much more likely to be noticed.

To many this idea will seem
like a kind of concept clash. Just as we regard churches as only
places for spiritual activities (and not places for chemistry
experiments), we tend to regard Mars as a kind of scientist's
playground exclusively for them, where any type of spiritual
phenomena could not occur. But such an idea may be invalid. If there
is an external spiritual reality, it might make itself known in any
part of our solar system, not just on our planet. So the idea that
“paranormal phenomena might occur on Earth, but never on Mars”
isn't necessarily justified.

Possibility 7: A NASA
Prankster

We must consider one other
possibility designed to help materialists sleep better at night –
the strange objects observed on Mars might be pranks. We don't know what NASA employees or subcontractors become involved with the
NASA images before they are released on the NASA web site. It is just
possible that someone is manipulating the pixels before they are
released, inserting strange things and having a good laugh when
others draw attention to them as amazing signs. This hypothesis can
be a “last resort” for the skeptical.

While mentioning this
possibility, I can also note that possibilities 4, 5, and 6 do not
actually require material manipulation of objects on the planet Mars.
Each of these possibilities could take place by some higher power
merely manipulating the pixels that are transmitted from Mars to
Earth. If you were some higher power wanting to make it look like
something special was on Mars, you might merely manipulate the image
pixels that are arriving on Earth from Mars, rather than physically
manipulating something on Mars.

Part of a More General
Phenomenon?

It is entirely possible that
the strange objects discovered on Mars are aspects of a more general
phenomenon, a phenomenon in which some unearthly intelligence or
intelligence very gradually unveils its presence to humanity. Other
aspects of the same phenomenon may include crop circles, orbs, and
UFO's. We may see such strange phenomena occurring more and more
often, with more and more dramatic manifestations. Eventually we may
realize it is all part of some process by which some very patient unearthly
intelligence (extraterrestrial or spiritual) very slowly makes itself
known to us.

I will not be surprised at
all if we start to see more and more cases of artificial-looking
things on the planet Mars.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

There has been a very strange
series of unusual things found in photographs taken by unmanned
robots on the planet Mars. Recently yet another strange object was
noticed on Mars. It was described in the press as a “Celtic cross,”
although it does not actually seem to be a Christian cross, in that
the two intersecting lines are the same size. It is more accurately
described as an X shape surrounded by a circle. The image taken on
Mars is below:

Image Credit: NASA

The photograph above was
taken by the Opportunity rover, one of the two robotic rovers now on
Mars. The NASA web page giving the photo says it was taken on Sol
3720, which corresponds to July 11, 2014.

If you do a Google search for
“Celtic cross on Mars,” you will find quite a few Internet
discussions about this photo. At first sight the picture seems to
indicate something sensational – what looks like an image of
something artificial on the surface of Mars, perhaps some artifact
from long ago.

But almost as soon as the
strange shape was discovered, skeptics came up with an explanation
trying to explain it away. The explanation was that the “X within a
circle” or “Celtic cross” shape was a screw imprint. It seems
there is a scientific instrument on the Opportunity rover called the
APXS, which stands for Alpha
Particle X-Ray Spectrometer. On this NASA page, the APXS is described
as a “contact” instrument, leading one to assume that it makes
contact with the soil or rock it is analyzing. The APXS is shown
below:

The APXS instrument

Now here is the ingenious
explanation of the skeptics. They noticed that in the image above,
there are exterior flat screws, which have an “X within a circle”
shape similar to the “Celtic cross” shape discovered on Mars. The
skeptics then suggested that the “Celtic cross” shape was caused
by a “screw imprint” when the APXS instrument made contact with
the surface of the planet Mars.

Some initial visual analysis
leads one to be doubtful about this explanation. The APXS instrument
has quite a few screws that might make an imprint, but we see only
one “X within a circle” in the Mars image of the “Celtic
cross.” Also, there seems to be a kind of handle shape attached to
this “Celtic cross,” something that is not explained by the
“screw imprint” hypothesis. Also, the “X” part of the “Celtic
cross” appears to be higher than the nearby rock or soil, an effect
one would not see if the shape was produced by a screw imprint.

The real test of the “screw
imprint” hypothesis is the timing of the Opportunity rover's
activities. In order for this explanation to hold up, it would have
to have been that the Opportunity rover was actually using the APXS
instrument at the particular spot that the photo was taken, before or
during the Martian day of July 11, 2014 (3720) when the photo was
taken. What do the NASA logs say about this?

The relevant log is found
here, which covers the period between July 9th and July
17th. Below is a screen shot from the NASA web page:

According to the log, between
July 9th and July 17th, the Opportunity rover
was mainly busy traveling. During this period, there was only one day
when the APSX instrument was used for in-place “contact” science:

The one sol of in-situ
(contact) science was the first sol of a two-sol autonomous 'touch 'n
go' where the rover used the robotic arm (the 'touch') on Sol 3720
(July 11, 2014), to collect a Microscopic Imager mosaic of the
surface target 'Trebia,' followed by an overnight contact integration
measurement performed by the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer
(APXS).

So is the skeptical
explanation of “screw imprint” compatible with this history of
what the Opportunity was doing? No, it is not. The record above
makes clear that the chronology was as follows:

First, during the
Martian day of Sol 3720 (July 11, 2014) the photos at the Trebia
site were taken by the Opportunity rover, including the photo of the
strange-looking “Celtic cross.”

Then, during the
following Martian NIGHT (as indicated by the word “overnight,”)
the APXS instrument was used (presumably to make some type of
contact with the ground), which was the only time that instrument
was used to make contact with the ground during the period between
July 9th and July 17th.

This chronology is completely
incompatible with the skeptical explanation that this “Celtic
cross” was produced by some kind of “screw imprint” caused by
the APXS instrument on the Opportunity rover. If the APXS use had
occurred at this “Trebia” site before the photos were
taken during the day of Sol 3720, such an explanation might be
tenable. But the chronology makes clear that the APXS instrument was
not used at this location until after the photos were taken
that include the “Celtic cross.”

So the official NASA
chronology refutes the glib “screw imprint” explanation for the
“Celtic cross” on Mars. Apparently the mysterious “Celtic
cross” could not have been produced by the APXS instrument.

We are stuck with a big
mystery. What in blazes is an X shape within a perfect circle doing
on the planet Mars? In my next blog post, I will theorize about
several possible explanations for this Martian surface anomaly and
other strange anomalies on the Martian surface. These
explanations will involve various awe-inspiring possibilities.

Postscript: If you read the Opportunity activity log here (the same link given above), it becomes clear that it is something like standard operating procedure for the Opportunity rover to travel to a spot, use the Microscopic Imager unit first to take pictures (the unit that took the "Celtic cross" picture), and then later (usually overnight) to use the APXS instrument (the unit claimed as the source of the "screw imprint") on the same spot. It's easy to see why that order is preferred. Since the APXS has to make contact with the surface, it's better to take the pictures first, to capture the natural, undisturbed look of the soil and rocks being studied (rather than take pictures of the soil after it has been touched and zapped by the APXS with its x-rays and alpha particles).

Monday, October 20, 2014

Some excitement has been raised recently about a scientific study
involving solar x-rays. The popular press has been gushing forth with
statements like this: “British scientists believe that they may have
finally found the first direct evidence of dark matter.” But such
statements are exaggerations.

The new study does not give direct evidence for dark matter.
Direct evidence for a new type of particle is found at places like
the Large Hadron Collider, which produced evidence for the Higgs
boson particle. The new study was something completely different, a
study of solar x-rays. The authors detected a seasonal variation in
solar x-rays, one that is anomalous. As we normally think of the
sun, it is something that goes about its business without the
slightest knowledge of earthly seasons – so how could there be such
a seasonal variation?

Sun face: another type of solar weirdness (credit: NASA)

There are a variety of possible explanations that the authors can
think of, which are listed in Table 4 at the back of their paper. The
explanations include solar wind charge exchange, “galactic
background, local bubble,” residual soft proton flux, keV electron
flux, Earth aldebo, and Compton-Getting effect/X-ray dipole. But the
authors seem to prefer a different explanation – that their
observations are caused by a type of undiscovered particle called
axions. Their suggestion is that the sun may be producing these
axions, that they may be interacting with our planet's magnetic
field, and that this may be the explanation for the seasonal
variability.

It's the same old story we see again and again these days. First,
scientists make a modest statement, which in this case is the
statement made in the scientific paper, which merely says that
“potential axion signatures” have been found. Then science
writers (eager to announce something important that gets more web
hits) inflate this into something much bigger, in this case “the first direct evidence of dark matter.”
For one thing, the new study does not provide direct evidence for any
type of matter, either dark or normal, because it is a study of
energy not matter (X-rays being a form of energy). For another
thing, as I mentioned above there are quite a few alternate ways of
explaining the observations without assuming the existence of axions.

Moreover, even if axions do exist, that does not confirm the
theory that dark matter is a key component of the universe. Axions
are merely a candidate dark matter particle. If we knew that
the sun produced some axions, that still would not tell us whether
dark matter plays a major role in the universe, as we still wouldn't
know about how much of a relation there is between dark matter and
axions, how many axions there are, how much dark matter there is, and
so forth.

The scientists say, “We have discovered a seasonal signal in
this X-ray background, which has no conventional explanation, but is
consistent with the discovery of axions.” The phrase “consistent
with” means little. Here are four levels of scientific assertion,
from weakest to strongest:

X is consistent with Y. This means very little. It does
not mean that Y is true, nor does it necessarily imply that Y is
probably true. A hundred and one weird conspiracy theories are
consistent with the assassination of John Kennedy, but it doesn't
mean that any of them are true or probably true.

X suggests Y. This is a stronger statement, but basically
all that it says is that X brings to mind Y, without asserting Y's
likelihood. Lots of things suggest other things that aren't really
there, as when you look at a cloud in the sky and see a face.

X is evidence for Y. This is a still stronger statement,
which pretty much indicates that Y is likely. But since evidence can
be misleading, it still leaves the door open that Y may not be true.

X proves Y. This is the strongest assertion, which asserts
that Y is definitely true.

I may note that while the new
X-ray observations may be consistent with dark matter or axions, they
are also consistent with something radically different: astrology!
The authors have provided evidence suggesting a weird unexplained
connection between the sun and the seasons. I can imagine an
astrologer's reaction: why, of course, they're all connected along
with the zodiac and your birth sign, just as we astrologers have been
saying for centuries. Don't get me wrong: I am not a believer in
astrology. I merely mention this to point out that it means quite
little to say “X is consistent with Y,” because X may also may be
consistent with a hundred and one other things you don't want to
believe in or never thought of.

As you can probably figure out, I am still skeptical about dark
matter. I regard it as a possibility, but do not think its likelihood
has been demonstrated. One of the reasons I am skeptical is the
severe problem of reconciling dark matter theory with observations of
dwarf galaxies, as discussed here and here. Another reason I remain skeptical is that scientists
keep changing their story about dark matter. Six days ago an article
on space.com said, “Scientists have found that the Milky Way galaxy
holds half as much dark matter...as scientists had previously
thought.” Beware of a claim when someone keeps changing his story.
If someone knocked on your door one day offering to sell you a jewel
that he claimed was worth 2000 dollars, you wouldn't exactly have
confidence in him if he appeared the next day claiming the jewel was
actually worth 1000 dollars.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Floyd Baxter was a Denver bus driver who liked to unwind from the
stresses of his job by hiking in the mountains. One day he hiked deep
into the mountains, and saw another hiker in the distance. Suddenly
Floyd heard a strange scream. The hiker had fallen off a treacherous
mountain cliff. Floyd rushed to where the hiker was. He was surprised
to see the hiker was wearing some kind of strange helmet looking like
the helmet of a space suit.

Floyd looked into the helmet and saw a strange face unlike any he
had seen before. The eyes were larger than human eyes, and the nose
was a weird kind of triangle slit. The skin was salmon-colored. Floyd
thought to himself: what the devil have I stumbled on to? Some
kind of weird alien hiker?

It was apparently an alien being, an extraterrestrial from some
other planet. The poor creature had apparently died in the fall from
the cliff. For some time Floyd just stood in wonder looking at this
amazing site. He tried speaking to the alien creature, but got no
response. He tried gently shaking its arm, but there was no sign of
life.

Floyd noticed that the alien wore a kind of vest-like apparatus or
device that was about the size of a life jacket used to keep swimmers
afloat. The device fitted over the alien's arms much as a life jacket
fits over a man's arms. At the front of this vest-like device there
were dozens of small buttons. After great hesitation, Floyd finally
decided to remove this vest-like device from the alien's body. He
imagined that the vest-like apparatus might be some kind of a supply
holder, and that inside it might be something he could use to help
save the life of the alien – perhaps some kind of life-saving
potion he could pour into the creature's small mouth.

So holding the machine, Floyd pressed one of the buttons on the
vest-like apparatus. Suddenly Floyd found himself transported
instantly to another planet.

Astonished, Floyd looked around. He could see no sign of the place
he had found the alien, and no sign of the alien. He was now at some
location he had never before been to. It was apparently some
location that was not even on planet Earth.

Looking ahead he could see two mighty glaciers that fed into the
waters of a sea. The sea water was bluer than any he had ever seen.
In the sea he saw what looked like two large islands. The temperature
was very low.

Floyd knew from the moon in the sky that this location was not on
Earth. The moon in the sky did not look like any moon he had ever
seen.

Floyd asked himself: how could this have happened? Then he had an
idea. Perhaps the machine he was holding, the machine he had taken
from the alien creature, was some kind of instantaneous
transportation device. Perhaps rather than using big spaceships to
travel to different planets, the alien was simply using some kind of
amazing machine that could instantly transport a person to an
entirely different planet.

The temperature was too cold, so Floyd decided that he might as
well test his idea immediately. He decided to press another one of
the buttons on the machine.

Then instantly Floyd again found himself transported to another
planet. This planet was much warmer, and it was nighttime, but a
night unlike any Floyd had ever seen. The sky was ablaze with
hundreds of stars far brighter than any you could see on planet
Earth.

Ahead of Floyd was a building, and Floyd began to walk towards it.
But out of the building there came creatures unlike any Floyd had
ever seen. They looked like elephants with spider heads. Terrified,
Floyd thought to himself: I'm getting the hell out of here.
He pressed another button on the machine.

Suddenly again Floyd was instantly transported to another planet.
He found himself in a totally different landscape. It was a lovely
valley flanked by mountain peaks. Floyd saw some strange-looking
houses and a lake ahead. He walked towards them.

Near the lake Floyd encountered the planet's inhabitants. They
were beautiful-looking creatures who had whitish-blue
skin. One of the creatures seemed to say “Hello” to Floyd, but it
was not through language, but through telepathy.

Floyd tried to talk to the creature, but it was useless. But then
he tried just thinking his thoughts. It worked! Floyd could talk to
the creature purely through telepathy.

Floyd stayed at the planet for two days. He found the creatures on
the planet to be loving and trusting. He told them he was from
another planet, and they believed him. Floyd found the planet so
delightful he was hesitant to leave. But eventually he decided he
really should get back to his home planet. So he decided to keep
pressing more buttons on the machine. Floyd thought to himself: one
of these buttons must be programmed to transport me to Earth.

Floyd pressed another button on the machine. Again, he was
instantly transported to another planet. This time, the planet was
his home planet. He found himself back on Earth, near the same place
he found the dead alien and the alien machine.

Floyd hiked back to his car, and drove home. Floyd then thought:
wait until everyone hears about this!

First, Floyd told his friend Charley all about what had happened.
Charley refused to believe a single word of his story. Then Floyd
called up a newspaper and got a reporter to come over. Floyd spent
three hours telling all about what had happened. Two days later the
newspaper published the story: Bus Driver Claims to Have Visited
Other Planets.

But no one seemed to believe the story. Floyd became an object of
ridicule and contempt. The bus riders would come on his bus and
whisper: that's him, the crazy bus driver who thinks he went to
other planets. Children from Floyd's neighborhood would stand
outside his house and make scornful jokes about Floyd. When they saw
him come out of his house, they would taunt him by saying things
like: Hey, big-shot, have you been to any new planets today?

The bus company called in Floyd and told him that since he was
either a huge liar or someone suffering from hallucinations, he could
not be trusted to perform his bus-driver job. Floyd was fired. Unable
to keep up with his house payments, he received a foreclosure notice
from the bank.

Floyd thought to himself: what can I do? Then he remembered
something very important. He had brought the alien machine back with
him in his car, and had left it in the trunk of his car. He had also
remembered which button he could press to return to the planet of the
beautiful, trusting telepathic creatures.

Floyd remembered those creatures he had visited for two days. They
were so loving, so trustful, and so innocent. They seemed so
different from the humans he had recently dealt with.

Floyd opened the trunk of his car, and took out the alien device.
Preparing to return to the planet of the telepathic creatures, Floyd
thought to himself: as soon as I get back to that planet, I'm
throwing away this damn machine.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

We may not be more than a few decades away from discovering proof
of extraterrestrial intelligence. Various people have speculated on
what the cultural effects will be of such a discovery. A common idea
is that if we finally discover some other intelligent life out there
in the universe, it will be a shattering event for traditional world
religions. The idea is sometimes suggested that the discovery of
intelligent extraterrestrials might cause a sudden collapse in
confidence in long-standing world religions, causing a large fraction
of their followers to abandon their faiths.

But such an idea may be unfounded. Rather surprisingly, the
discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence may not have all that huge
an effect on the world's traditional religions, for several reasons I
will now explain.

Reason #1: Ideological Inertia

In physics inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in
its state of motion, proportional to the object's speed and mass. We
can use the same idea to identify a kind of ideological inertia –
the resistance of a person to a change in his beliefs. People all
over the world of many different viewpoints have a huge amount of
ideological inertia, including both believers and total
non-believers. The longer a person has been believing in some
particular doctrine, the more ideological inertia he will tend to
have. We can visualize ideological inertia as kind of like a great
big boulder that is very hard to move unless a gigantic force is
applied.

It seems that people will be unlikely to change long-standing
beliefs unless something incredibly dramatic happens to them – a
“knock you over the head with a 2 by 4” kind of event. If we
were to discover some unmistakable signs of extraterrestrial
intelligence in some far off solar system, that probably would not be
sufficient to cause that much of a belief change in people who have
held old-fashioned religious beliefs for decades. It might be that
such a discovery should cause people to reassess many of their
beliefs, but it probably wouldn't.

Reason #2: People Would “Mentally Minimize” the Discovery

Many old-fashioned believers would not at all want to suddenly
leap to a very different new outlook on the universe in which man is
a mere minor player in the universe rather than the center of
creation. So people would use various mental tricks to minimize
whatever discovery was made. One little mind trick people would use
is the little trick of “avoiding the implications.”

For example, imagine if we were to discover positive evidence of
intelligent life in some distant solar system. Many people would
attempt to minimize this discovery in their minds by thinking along
these lines:

Before we knew there was one intelligent species, mankind. Now
we apparently know that there are two. No big deal – two is not
much different than one.

Of course, this type of thinking involves a little mind trick.
Given a galaxy of billions of stars, and the existence of billions of
galaxies such as ours, the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence
should really cause us to conclude that the universe is full of
intelligent life, and that there are billions of intelligent
species. But through the trick of “mental minimization,” a person
can avoid such an implication, and just think thoughts such as “two
is not much different than one.”

Old-fashioned believers could use a similar trick to kind of
pretend that any extraterrestrial civilization discovered far away is
“irrelevant,” because of the difficulty of communicating with it,
or the unlikelihood of it visiting our planet.

The Fireworks Galaxy (Credit: NASA)

Reason #3: People Would Explain Away the Discovery or Dismiss
It As a Deception

People of all viewpoints (both believers and skeptics) show an
almost limitless capacity for explaining away or dismissing things
they don't want to believe it. If extraterrestrial intelligence were
discovered in a distant solar system, I imagine that the defenders of
old-fashioned viewpoints would come out in force, and pull out every
argumentative trick in the book to cast doubt on the discovery. They
might argue that the discovery was a misinterpretation of the data,
or that the discovery was just some story being put forth by
astronomers eager to get more funding for their pet projects. The
only type of discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence that would
prevent such a maneuver would be if giant alien spaceships were to
appear in the skies of many of our cities.

If people didn't buy the explanation that the discovery of aliens
was a misinterpretation or a plot by fund-seeking scientists,
defenders of old-fashioned religions could always use the last resort
of arguing that the evidence for extraterrestrials is all just a
deception by Satan and his cohorts. Outsiders would cringe and laugh
at such an explanation, but within a particular religion such an
explanation might seem plausible.

Reason #4: People Would Try to Squeeze-fit the Discovery into
Their Own Doctrines or Scriptural Analysis

It also seems that whatever was discovered in terms of
extraterrestrial intelligence, old-fashioned believers would try to
somehow make it seem compatible with their own religious beliefs or
scriptures. It's been said that you can find a Bible verse to support
almost any opinion. That may be an exaggeration, but no doubt after
the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, people would scour
the Bible looking for some verse that could be cited as a prediction
or foreshadowing of such a discovery. Never mind the fact that the
Bible makes no mention of extraterrestrial life. Scriptural
enthusiasts would probably find some murky passage that they could
claim was a prediction or foreshadowing of the discovery.

We can also imagine that old-fashioned believers might try to
squeeze the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence into their own
traditions by saying that the discovery is a sign of something
mentioned in their own traditions. If we discovered signs that stars
far away are being manipulated by some higher intelligence,
Christians might say, “It's not extraterrestrials doing that –
it's angels.” Hindus might say, “It's not extraterrestrials doing
that – it's one of our many gods.”

Conclusion

There are all kinds of defense mechanisms that old-fashioned
believers could and probably would use to minimize the shock of the
discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence. So in the short-term (say, 5
or 10 years), such a discovery might have relatively little effect on
the world's major religions. But in the much longer term, after people
had many years to reflect on the implications of the discovery, the
impact might be much greater.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

This week a scientific paper was published in the journal Resuscitation announcing results of
the long-term AWARE study which was the largest ongoing study on
near-death experiences. Let's look at what the study found, and also
look at its results in context, putting the study in perspective.
The study was co-authored by more than 30 different researchers from
more than a dozen colleges and universities.

The AWARE study may well have been motivated by previous accounts
of near-death experiences, which first came to public light in the
1970's with the publication of Raymond Moody's book Life After
Life. Patching together elements from different accounts, Moody
described an archetypal typical near-death experience, while noting
that most accounts include only some elements in the described
archetype. The archetype NDE included elements such as a sensation of
floating out of the body, feelings of peace and joy, a life-review
that occurs very quickly or in some altered type of time, a passage
through a tunnel, an encounter with a being of light, and seeing
deceased relatives.

A previous study on near-death experiences was published in the
British medical journal The Lancet in 2001. The study interviewed 344
patients who had a close encounter with death, generally through
cardiac arrest. 62 of those reported some kind of near-death
experience. 15 reported an out-of-body experience, 19 reported
moving through a tunnel, 18 reported observation of a celestial
landscape, 20 reported meeting with deceased persons, and 35 reported
positive emotions.

"Pulled toward the light" -- a typical part of NDE stories

The AWARE in the AWARE study name is an acronym for awareness
during resuscitation
– the type of resuscitation that takes place when a person has a
heart attack (cardiac arrest) and almost dies. The study collected
data at 15 different hospitals, and was carried on over the course of
four years. The study attempted to gather accounts of people's
recollections in hospitals after they had very close encounters with
death, typically during a heart attack or cardiac arrest. Over 2000
cardiac arrest cases were studied, and there were only 330 who
survived to leave the hospital. Of those 330, only 101 met
eligibility requirements, agreed to be interviewed, and also agreed to
“stage 2” interviews.

So the study ended up with a group of only 101 persons who had
experienced a close encounter with death, generally because of a
cardiac arrest. Of this pool of 101 persons, 22% answered “Yes”
to the question, “Did you have a feeling of peace or pleasantness?”
13% answered “Yes” to the question, “Did you feel separated
from your body?” 13% answered “Yes” to the question, “Were
your senses more vivid than usual?” 8% answered “Yes” to the
question, “Did you seem to encounter a mystical being or presence, or hear an unidentifiable voice?” 7%
answered “Yes” to the question, “Did you seem to enter some
other, unearthly world?” Only 3% answered “Yes” to the
question, “Did you see deceased or religious spirits?”

These results are corroboration of published accounts of
what typically happens in a near-death experience, although the numbers are smaller than those reported in the
Lancet study. The AWARE study does quote one respondent who gives an
account very much like what has been published in previous books on
near-death experiences:

I have comeback from the other side of life. ..God sent (me)
back,it wasnot (my) time — (I) had many things to do. ..(I traveled)
through a tunneltoward a very strong light, which didn’t dazzle or hurt (my)
eyes. ..therewere other people in the tunnel whom (I) did not recognize.
When (I)emerged (I) described a very beautiful crystal city. .. there
was a riverthat ran through the middle of the city (with) the most crystal
clearwaters. There were many people, without faces, who were washing
inthe waters. ..the people were very beautiful. .. there was the
mostbeautiful singing. ..(and I was) moved to tears. (My) next
recollectionwas looking up at a doctor doing chest compressions.

One very unique feature of the study was its placement of little
shelves in various hospital areas where cardiac resuscitation was
deemed likely to occur. Each shelf had a unique symbol that could
only be identified from someone looking at it from above. The shelves
were designed to test previous accounts that patients had floated out
of their bodies and looked at their bodies from above – accounts
such as the famous Pam Reynolds account I will describe in a moment.

The placement of these shelves was apparently futile. But the
study did “hit the jackpot” in regard to one case of a
57-year-old patient who said that he floated out of his body while
being revived from his cardiac arrest. The man said that a woman
appeared in a high corner of the room, beckoning him to come up to
her. He said that despite thinking that was impossible, he found
himself up in the high corner of the room, looking down on the
medical team trying to revive him. The man described specific
details of the revival efforts, including the presence of a bald fat
man with a blue hat, a nurse saying, “Dial 444 cardiac arrest,”
his blood pressure being taken, a nurse pumping on his chest, a
doctor sticking something down his throat, and blood gases and blood
sugar levels being taken.

Here is what the scientific paper said in regard to the accuracy
of these recollections:

He accurately described people, sounds, and activities from his
resuscitation...His medical records corroborated his accounts and
specifically supported his descriptions and the use of an automated
external defibrillator (AED). Based on current AED algorithms, this
likely corresponded with up to 3 minutes of conscious awareness
during CA [cardiac arrest] and CPR.

So here is a man who had a heart
attack, and should have been unconscious during the medical efforts
to revive him. Instead he accurately describes the details of what
happened. Moreover, he claims that he observed these details while in
a position above his body, in the high corner of the medical room.

What we have here is what seems like a
good-as-gold vintage “out of the body experience,” one with
details that have been verified. This is an example of what is called
a veridical near-death experience – one with observations that were
subsequently verified.

This is not at all the first time this
happened, but merely the first time such a thing has been documented
in a peer-reviewed paper co-authored by more than 30 different
researchers from a dozen different colleges and universities. There
have been several previous similar incidents that have been reported
in the relevant literature. The most significant one was the case of
Pam Reynolds, which was reported by physician Michael Sabom in his
book Light and Death. Reynolds underwent a very drastic brain
operation in which the blood was drained from her body, and her body
was super-chilled. In such a state, consciousness should have been
completely impossible. But Reynolds reported drifting out of her
body, and observing the operation from above. She was able to verify
details of what had happened during the operation, and described a
very specific medical instrument that was used in her brain surgery.

The Reynolds case is discussed in this
Salon.com article, which also discusses the case (reported by social
worker Kimberly Clark) of a woman named Maria who claimed to have
floated out of her body during her operation. The woman claimed that
while drifting around out of her body, she saw a particular type of
shoe on a particular ledge of the third floor of the hospital. A
subsequent check found just such a shoe at such a location.

Then there is the account below of
physician Lloyd Rudy who thought that a patient had died. He found himself
discussing in a doorway with another doctor what could have been done
differently to save the apparently dead patient. But after a while,
the faintest signs of life were emitted from the patient. After
further medical efforts, the patient was saved, and eventually gained
consciousness. The patient then described how he had floated above
his body, and watched the two doctors in the doorway discussing his
case, and also described details that he should have been completely
unable to have observed, because he had no vital signs at the time or even during the previous minute.

These cases help put the AWARE study in perspective. The AWARE
study has given us further evidence to support the conclusion that
the human mind, spirit, or soul (call it whatever you want) can
continue to exist outside of the body, and make observations at a
time when conscious brain activity should have totally ceased.

That does not prove that there is life after death, but it tends
to strongly support such an idea. To conclude (as Bazian does in this
article) that “overall this study provides no evidence to support
the existence of an afterlife” is to stubbornly engage in knee-jerk
denialism. Bazian attempts to explain away the study by saying, “It
is perfectly plausible that people would continue to have thoughts
and experiences while there is still oxygenated blood flowing to the
brain.” But that explains nothing, because when a person has
cardiac arrest, there isn't oxygenated blood flowing to the
brain – that blood flow stops when the heart stops.

Does the AWARE study prove life after death? No, but scientists
also don't prove evolution merely by discovering another skull that
is halfway between that of a man and an ape. Such a discovery is
merely another piece of evidence belonging to a large body of
evidence that points to the reality of evolution. Similarly, the
AWARE study by itself does not prove life after death, but it is a
substantial additional piece of evidence in a large and diverse body
of evidence that suggests life after death. To read about more than ten other such
types of evidence, read my recently authored book 50 Hints of
Cosmic Purpose, which can be purchased through this link for $1.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Arguments involving galactic
colonization are often made when discussing how much intelligent life
exists in our galaxy and our universe. One all-too-common line of
reasoning goes like this: if intelligent life had arisen elsewhere in
the galaxy, it would have already colonized the entire galaxy, and we
would see signs of such intelligent life right now on our planet (or
we would never have appeared because Earth would have been colonized
first); therefore, man is the only intelligent species in the galaxy.
This is a very weak argument that involves multiple fallacies that I
will now discuss.

Fallacy #1: The Fallacy
of Not Realizing the Implications of Slow Interstellar Travel

According to Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity, nothing can travel faster than the
speed of light. So this means travel between
stars is going to take a long time. In fact, there are practical
engineering reasons for thinking that a spaceship could not travel
more than roughly about one fifth of the speed of light. This means
that a trip between stars will probably take decades.

This slowness of travel has
two main implications. First it means that we should not imagine a
galaxy being colonized in less than a period of millions of years.
But it also means much more. It means that any unified coherent
program of colonization is doubtful. The whole idea of any
civilization setting out on a million year project may be entirely
dubious. The slowness of interstellar travel also probably means
that the galaxy can never really be colonized in the sense of being
controlled in a unified way by a single culture.

Imagine if Earth were to
create colonies on planets revolving around other stars. The nearest
colony would be about 4 light years away. The colonists would know
that if they went their own way and declared their independence, it
would take 4 years for the news of such an announcement to reach
Earth. It would then take at least another 4 years before a spaceship
came from Earth to punish them for their disobedience (and probably
more like twenty years, because of the near-impossibility of
traveling at anything close to the speed of light). Such a colony
would therefore not feel that it was under very strong political
control by Earth.

Colonies that were farther away from Earth
would feel even more free to do whatever they wanted. If an
expedition from Earth established a colony on a planet revolving
around a star that was fifty light years from Earth, then the
inhabitants of that planet would know that they could declare their
independence, and it would be at least 100 years before they would
suffer any punishment – fifty years for the news to get to Earth,
and at least fifty years for a punitive expedition to travel from
Earth to the colony (but probably more like hundreds of years).

The
farther the colony was from Earth, the more its inhabitants would
feel that they could do whatever they wanted without suffering any
ill effects. If a colony was established 500 light years from Earth,
and then declared its independence, it would have no worries at all
about some punishment from Earth that could not arrive in less than
1000 years (500 years for the independence announcement to reach
Earth, and more than 500 years – and probably thousands of years –
for a punitive expedition to travel from Earth).

This point is illustrated in the diagram below, in which the yellow dot at the center represents a planet attempting to colonize other stars.

It would seem, therefore,
that in terms of any type of system whereby one planet controls the
galaxy, galactic colonization cannot even occur in a meaningful
sense. Because of the slowness of interstellar travel, the zones of
control of any planet would be relatively short, extending no more
than a few hundred light years at most (only a tiny fraction of the
size of the galaxy). Planets would realize that, and this
realization would make them less likely to even attempt anything such
as a colonization of the entire galaxy.

Fallacy #2: The Fallacy
of Ignoring Loss of Colonies and Loss of Interest

Some planet starts out
as the source of galactic colonization, sending a spaceship to
colonize a planet around another star.

After that planet has
been colonized, and has set up an elaborate technical civilization,
the colonized planet then itself sends out a spaceship to colonize
another star.

The process continues
over and over, until eventually the entire galaxy is colonized.

One great weakness in such an
idea is the fallacy of assuming that once each planet was colonized,
it would continue to contribute to the overall program of galactic
colonization, and also the fallacy of assuming that planets that had
been colonized would stay colonized indefinitely. It's kind of like
the fallacy of assuming that if you built a house on each continent,
that those houses would still be around 1000 years later.

In fact, there are all kinds
of reasons why different planets that had been colonized would either
“drop out” of a colonization program, or would revert to a
non-colonized state because of the failure of colonies or the end of
civilizations. One reason might just be an act of political
independence. Some planets would just say, “To hell with it, we
have no interest in sending out interstellar spaceships.” Then
other colonies would simply just simply dissolve for the same reason
that civilizations have dissolved or might dissolve – resource
issues, wars, runaway technology, and so forth. Some planets might
be conquered by neighboring planets. When colonies failed, a few
million years of geological activity might be sufficient to remove
all traces of them.

The point is that you cannot
assume that during the million years or more needed to colonize the
entire galaxy, that each previously colonized planet would stay
colonized. During that long million years, some fraction of the
previously colonized planets would revert to being not colonized as
colonies failed, civilizations fell, war took its toll, and so forth.
We have no idea of what that fraction would be. It be could 10% or
20% or perhaps 90%. Fallacy #3: The Fallacy
of Assuming That Colonizers Would Colonize All Colonization Targets

The fallacious argument
discussed at the beginning of this blog post assumes that some
galactic civilization would go throughout the galaxy and colonize all
available colonization targets (all planets like our planet). But why
make such an assumption? It is contrary to what we know about how
humans act.

In fact, every large country
declares a significant fraction of the available land in its country
to be “off limits” to development. Such land is put in natural
reserves. The natural reserves in the United States include the
national park system and the national forests, which together make up
a significant fraction of United States territory. China has a
similar system. So why should we assume that interstellar colonizers
would colonize every available planet in the galaxy without declaring
some planets and some parts of the galaxy to be “off limits” to
colonizers? We shouldn't. This possibility makes the whole “if
they existed, they would have colonized us already” argument fall
apart like a house of cards. It is entirely possible that
our planet is part of a little section of the galaxy that some
superior civilization has preserved as a reserve area not to be
colonized.

The fallacy discussed here is
kind of a “fallacy of assuming unlimited utilization” similar to
the fallacy of assuming that if you give a boy some crayons and one
of those books with blank white pages, then necessarily if you return
a year later all of the pages will have drawings or scribbles on
them.

Fallacy #4:
The Fallacy of Assuming That Very Distant Robotic Squatters Would
Have Some Great Net Value

One version of the argument
made at the beginning of this blog post is based on the idea of
self-reproducing robotic colonizers. The argument goes like this: any
civilization could send out a spaceship filled with robots to the
nearest star, and when that spaceship arrived, those robots could use
resources at that star system to create more robots, which could then
travel to another star in their own expedition. The same thing could
happen over and over again, and eventually these self-reproducing
robots would “take over the galaxy.” But this hasn't happened,
so therefore, the argument goes, we must be alone in the galaxy.

The problem with this
argument is the underlying assumption that such a galaxy-wide
proliferation would actually be “taking over the galaxy,” or that
it would be something that would actually have much of a net value.
Because the effective zones of control of any planet would be
relatively short (actually extending no more than 100 light years),
sending out robots to inhabit planets across the galaxy would not
really be “taking over the galaxy,” but really just “sending
out squatters to the distant corners of the galaxy.” Having robots
20,000 light years away wouldn't actually give a planet any control
over distant corners of the galaxy, because you don't have any real
control when it takes 40,000 years to send a round trip message from
a planet to those distant corners.

Such robotic squatters
proliferating throughout every planet of the galaxy would actually
have a very strong negative value. By proliferating all over the
place and taking up every planet, they would prevent the natural
evolution of diverse species and civilizations across the galaxy, and
would thereby be a kind of massive “crime against diversity.”

Fallacy #5:
The Fallacy of Ignoring the Possibility of Counter-Colonizers

According to the naïve
calculations of some thinkers, we need merely calculate how long it
would take colonizers from one planet to spread throughout the galaxy
unimpeded. But such calculations ignore the important consideration
that the efforts of any one planet to colonize the galaxy would probably be
resisted by other planets. If intelligent life arose roughly the same
time on hundreds or thousands of planets in the galaxy, we would not
expect any one to take over the galaxy, because of opposition from
other civilized planets that arose at roughly the same time.

This is true even if one
imagines robotic colonizers. One interesting point is that
self-replicating counter-colonizers are just as easy to create as
self-replicating colonizers. So imagine one civilization sends out an
interstellar spaceship filled with self-reproducing robots instructed
to build colonies, make more robots, and build more spaceships for
more interstellar expeditions. The same technique can be used by some
other planet to destroy the colonization efforts of the first planet.
The second planet might launch such a “counter-colonization”
interstellar spaceship filled with self-reproducing robots
instructed to find resources, make more robots, and build more
spaceships for more interstellar expeditions – not for the purpose
of colonization, but simply for the purpose of destroying the robotic
colonies created by the first planet. A planet might launch such a
“counter-colonization” program if it noticed that some other
planet was putting its robots all over the galaxy, and the first
planet thought that such a program was a cancer that must be wiped
out.

Conclusion

Typical arguments involving
galactic colonization are fallacious, and from such arguments we
should not draw any conclusions about how common intelligence is in
our galaxy. It is entirely plausible that there exist very large
numbers of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, although it
is still too early to assume with confidence that intelligent life is
abundant in our galaxy.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Orbs
are strange circular features that have been showing up in flash
photographs around the world since the invention of the digital
camera. Some people think that orbs are evidence of a paranormal
phenomena (which might or might not involve spiritual entities, since
there are simpler paranormal possibilities such as undiscovered
energy effects and “mind over energy” effects). Other people have
attempted to debunk such thinking by offering mundane natural
explanations for orbs.

Orb photo giving the impression of a high-speed right-angle turn

The
two main theories to naturally explain orbs are a reflection theory
and an “orb zone” theory maintaining that orbs are caused by tiny
specks of dust very near the camera. In Part 1 of this 3-part series,
I showed why the reflection theory is not a suitable explanation for the more unusual
orbs that have been photographed, and in Part 2 I explained why the “orb zone” theory is also
not a workable explanation for such orbs.

There
is still one matter to consider: an experiment done that some researchers claimed to be “definitive proof that orbs are not
paranormal.” Of course, the very use of this term suggests that the
experimenters were not really taking a scientific approach, as real
scientists virtually never release experimental results and call them
definitive proof for or against anything. A term such as “definitive
proof” indicates that the experimenters were those with a strong
experimental bias.

But
nonetheless let's take a look at this supposedly “definitive
proof.” The experiments in question were a series of photographs
taken with a special camera called the Fujifilm
W1 3D. The camera in question has two lenses that take pictures
simultaneously. It is a camera for taking photo pairs that one can
use with a stereoscopic viewer, to get a 3D effect when looking at
photos. There is a camera option that allows you to get separate
photos of the image taken with the left lens and the right lens.

The camera

Now the experiment in
question is one that took orb photos using this camera. It seems that
many of the orbs show up in one of the two pictures taken at the same
time by the same camera, but not both of them. The experiments
trumpet this as proof that orbs are really produced by dust. But is
it really any such thing? No, it isn't (and may in fact be evidence
that orbs actually are
paranormal).

To back up this point, let us
consider different paranormal possibilities for what may produce orbs
in photographs:

Orb Theory 1:
Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or
energy agents that act on a “direct to device” basis, without
actually producing flashes of light in the air. This theory is
similar to the theory that EVP anomalies on tape recordings are
produced by unknown intelligent agents that act on a “direct to
device” basis, producing effects on tape recordings that you can't
hear when tape recording.

Orb Theory 2:
Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or
energy agents that are attracted to humans, and hang around very
close to people taking photographs. The orbs appear in some
paranormal way as small flashes, pulses or reflections that appear
very close to the camera.

Orb Theory 3:
Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or
energy agents that act several feet or meters away from humans, but
send in a directional little pulse of light directly towards a camera
lens, rather like someone might point a laser pointer directly at
something.

Orb Theory 4:
Paranormal orbs are produced by some “mind over energy” effect of
the human mind, that act on a “direct to device” basis, without
actually producing flashes of light in the air.

Orb Theory 5:
Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or
energy effects that cause something like a pulse, flash or reflection
a few feet or meters away from the camera, but such a thing can only
be seen where there is a particular angle between the camera lens and
this pulse, flash or reflection. This is consistent with the fact
that orb photos show up on such an irregular basis.

Orb Theory 6:
Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or
energy agents that typically cause a circular flash of light to
appear several feet or meters away from humans, something that a
camera will capture regardless of the distance and camera angle.

Now, how many of these are
orb theories might seem to be damaged by the Fujifilm
W1 3D experimental results? Only the last one (and as I will argue in
a moment, even that is a misimpression). The first four paranormal
orb theories are not at all discredited by these results. If orbs are
produced on some paranormal “direct to device” basis (Orb Theory
1 and Orb Theory 4), we would not expect such an effect to work on
more than one photograph when two photographs are taken
simultaneously. If orbs are produced by agents very close to the
camera (Orb Theory 2), we would not expect the Fujifilm
W1 3D experimental results to be any different (in regard to whether
orbs show up in both photographs) than they would be according to the
“orb zone” theory postulating that orbs are caused by dust near
the camera – because in both cases, the difference from the camera
is about the same. If orbs are produced by a directional pulse of
light (Orb Theory 3), there would be no particular reason for
suspecting that such a directional pulse would go towards both lens
in a double-lens camera. If Orb Theory 5 is true, it might be that
no more than one of the two lens of the Fujifilm
W1 3D camera would capture the orb, since there would be a different
angle between each of the lenses and the flash, pulse or reflection.

So 5 out of 6 paranormal orb
theories are clearly left standing after the Fujifilm
W1 3D results. And even Orb Theory 6 is
still compatible with the results. Why? Because the Fujifilm
W1 3D results only involved about 1800 orb photographs, and it
is possible that the photographers only photographed “dust orbs”
which are some entirely different effect from paranormal orbs. (Similarly, one would not disprove the idea of volcanoes by taking photos of many mountain tops that are not emitting lava.)

But let us ask: are these
results even consistent with the “orb zone” theory, that orbs
are mainly caused by dust? It is doubtful that they are.

Consider that theory. The
theory holds that orbs are caused by dust particles only a few inches
away from the camera, in front of the camera lens. So what should
happen with a camera such as the Fujifilm
W1 3D under the “orb zone” theory? The diagram below illustrates
what should happen. The diagram shows the Fujifilm
W1 3D from above. The blue units are the two different lenses. The
yellow unit in the middle is the flash. The yellow lines are the
light emitted from the flash. The gray blob is a speck of dust. The
red lines are the light reflected from the dust.

It seems that in such a
setup, if an orb is produced (by dust very near the lenses), then the
orb should be seen in the images taken by both lenses. But that is
apparently not what happens in most cases, according to the Fujifilm
W1 3D results.

So far from being evidence
that supports the “orb zone” theory that orbs are mainly caused
by dust, the Fujifilm W1 3D
results would seem to actually be incompatible with such a theory.
The results, as have seen, are also compatible with 6 out of 6
theories assuming that orbs are paranormal. So to trumpet these
results online as “definitive proof that orbs are not paranormal”
is pure bunk. If anything, the results would seem to be in favor of
the hypothesis that orbs are paranormal.

So based on what we have seen
here (and in my previous two posts in this series, Part 1 and Part
2), we are left with no good mundane explanation for the more
interesting anomalous-seeming orbs that have shown up in so many
flash photographs. It may well be time to consider extraordinary
possibilities. That does not mean we have to leap inevitably to some
“spirit emanation” hypothesis (although such a hypothesis still
seems viable). It could be that orbs are simply some anomalous form
of energy that scientists simply don't understand yet. Another
possibility is that orbs are actually produced by the photographer
himself, through some type of anomalous “mind over energy”
effect. The long-running Global Consciousness Project that originated
at Princeton University has accumulated evidence that humans have an
anomalous effect on random number generators. If such a thing is
possible, then it seems quite possible that humans can have an
anomalous effect on flash photographs. But that is just an
interesting possibility. At this time the long-standing phenomenon of
orbs showing up in flash photographs must simply be regarded as an
unsolved mystery. The glib explanations of the orb debunkers have not
stood up to scrutiny.

Copyright Notice

All posts on this blog are authored by Mark Mahin, and are protected by copyright. Copyright 2013-2014 by Mark Mahin. All rights reserved. Any resemblance between any fictional character and any real person is purely coincidental.